There is a pretty big difference between gross profit and net. Unless you think there are no overhead costs involved.
Not sure where you got those number though, See above.

McDonald's is subsidized? That's news to me.

Gross costs include overhead....look at your link, the available net income to common(common stock holder) is 5.59B, that is 5.59B in profit to common
sharholder per the costs at 17.2B in costs for 2013.....Gross profit is by definition taking all costs=labor, inventory, marketing, and capitol goods
against all sales........Takes another look at the numbers, fast food is not hurting.

A company that has an employee working a full schedule of 30+ hours a week AND receives government subsidies is receiving governmental subsidies
themselves.....If Mc'd's has an employee that makes a product for them and works a full time schedule, receives food stamps or subsidies, and McD's
makes a profit off that employee.....then sorry, but they receive subsidies.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pointr97
Again...gross profit is not the same as net profit....unless you have no overhead.

sorry phage, but net profit is after all other expenses are taken out......gross profit is simply the operating cycles costs vs sales......net
includes more of the long term debt, capital devaluation....overhead costs are figured in that operating cycle....ie, rent, electricity, and so
on.....whatever it takes to sell the burger.

Nope. Look at the statement.
Depreciation, Depletion & Amortization are deducted from sales and I omitted them from gross profit on purpose because they carry to the balance
sheet.

Think we may be getting mired in the mud......My initial point is that I think the free market won't react as the doomsayers are predicting....Your
point, those companies aren't doing as well as I think they are....sum it up?

i don't understand why we don't make businesses and just sell to each other. maybe we could form cooperatives, where we agree to buy only from each
other. i mean, we're a big enough nation that we could feasibly survive not partaking in a global community. it's forcing us to compete with global
slave wages, that has screwed the pooch.

a reply to: pointr97
My point(s).
No "insane" profit margin.
No subsidies.
Massive increase in minimum wage has ripple effects. Not only minimum wage workers will require increased wages in order to be fair. Skilled workers
and those with seniority will expect (and deserve) increases.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: undo
Well, for one thing, we want things that we don't have here.
For another, we want to spend as little as possible for them and if someplace else can make them for less...guess what?

yeah but those are just side effects of business being forced out. you don't need super cheap goods if you have enough money to buy more expensive
goods.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pointr97
My point(s).
No "insane" profit margin.
No subsidies.
Massive increase in minimum wage has ripple effects. Not only minimum wage workers will require increased wages in order to be fair. Skilled workers
and those with seniority will expect (and deserve) increases.

But if a McD's employee can't make enough to support themselves from a 40 hr work week because McD's pays them min wage.....Doesn't that mean that
McD's profit, even if it is a single dollar, is subsidized by my tax dollar?

Doesn't that mean that McD's profit, even if it is a single dollar, is subsidized by my tax dollar?

No. In fact it's the opposite.

If that person had no job at all they would be receiving more from the government.

If McDonald's lays that person off because the increase in wages reduces profitability, that person will receive unemployment insurance (decreasing
government benefits) for which McDonald's has been paying premiums (and thereby increase their premiums)

External assistance is not a bad thing....Goodness knows, i believe in helping those on hard times....However, the first thing an investor will ask is
how will this product stand on it's own....A business model that integrates long term government assistance is not a viable model.....A proper
business model should be able to create, market and sell their product at a profit without external assistance..........min wage employees that
receive food stamps means that those employees could not make that product for that company at the price of labor the company is willing to
pay......chalking it up to 'unskilled' is actually moronic, the industrial revolution proved that one......but you are welcome to look up all the
subsidies that companies like Walmart and McD receive besides employee food stamp and subsidized living.......Walmart for example, when a company goes
in to build a location, they front the money to build the facilities.....not walmart.

Doesn't that mean that McD's profit, even if it is a single dollar, is subsidized by my tax dollar?

No. In fact it's the opposite.

If that person had no job at all they would be receiving more from the government.

If McDonald's lays that person off because the increase in wages reduces profitability, that person will receive unemployment insurance (decreasing
government benefits) for which McDonald's has been paying premiums (and thereby increase their premiums)

I'll challenge you with that.....give me the numbers, an average SNAP benefit for a min wage worker vs completely unemployed.....

A business model that integrates long term government assistance is not a viable model

It doesn't. It doesn't matter to McDonald's business plan if their workers have government assistance. One way or the other. McDonald's business
plan involves hiring entry level, unskilled workers. That's it.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: undo
I'm not saying super cheap.
I'm saying that if something costs less people are going to buy more of it instead of the same thing that costs more.
It's a very basic economic principle.

that's where the idea of a cooperative comes into play. lets say you make furniture. you join the cooperative. i need some furniture, i go to your
catalog and order the furniture i need. i could've went to walmart, but since i'm part of the cooperative, i want the cooperative to succeed and
buy from you instead. one way to get this to work is to have a fee for being in the cooperative and then using that fee to invest in interest bearing
commodities like, real estate, gold or silver or some other real thing of value (platinum and even some of the rarer metals, for example), then
sharing the profits with the members of the cooperative at the end of each fiscal year.

to keep people from cheating and buying cheaper goods from outside the cooperative, make it part of the agreement that they must purchase from members
of the cooperative x-amount of times per year, and the more purchases from other cooperative members, the higher their slice of the profit pie will
be, at the end of the year, based on the actual dollar amount they've spent. in other words, buying a ton of small items, will net them small profit
bonus. whereas bigger more substantial purchases, will net them larger profit bonuses.

it's not the love of money that's at center stage, it's an attempt to stop the entire country from falling into abject poverty.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.